CCPR/C/125/D/2524/2015 3.4 The author is seeking an effective investigation into the disappearance of her brother, requests compensation for the moral damage suffered by her and asks the Committee to find that the Covenant has been violated, as stated above. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale of 31 March 2015, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication. According to article 402 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a suspect, defendant, convicted or acquitted person has a right to appeal a court verdict – in this case, the cassation decision of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dated 19 October 2011. In accordance with article 403 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, decisions at the cassation level can be further appealed under the supervisory review procedure. 4.2 Under federal law No. 518-FZ, dated 31 December 2014, those persons who had not filed for a supervisory appeal challenging court verdicts and decisions that came into force before 1 January 2013, maintained their right to file such a supervisory appeal until 1 January 2014. Those changes came into force on 11 January 2015 and from that date, all supervisory review requests on court verdicts and decisions that came into force before 1 January 2013, must be filed under chapters 47 and 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only by persons who had not previously had recourse to a supervisory review procedure. In such cases, the appeals are filed either under the cassation appeal procedure or the supervisory appeal procedure. It is clear from the author’s submissions that she did not file any appeals under chapters 47 and 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the decisions dated 9 September and 19 October 2011. Ms. Magomadova currently has the right to submit such appeals. The State party therefore contends that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, and therefore her communication should be considered inadmissible. 4.3 In a note verbale dated 16 April 2015, the State party also submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. On 2 July 2010, the authorities received a complaint about a missing person, Mr. Magomadov. The Investigations Committee of the Russian Federation conducted a preliminary assessment (“protsessualnaya proverka”).5 According to the assessment, Mr. Magomadov disappeared on 9 January 1995 near the “Kavkaz” hotel in the city of Grozny and his current whereabouts is unknown. 4.4 Mr. Magomadov’s brother, M.M. was questioned as part of the preliminary assessment. He testified that from his birth, his family, including his brother, resided in Shalazhi village in the Urus-Martan district of the Chechen Republic. From 1982, M.M. had resided in Moscow. On 1 January 1995, he learned from his father that his brother Shamsy had left for Grozny in his car. The purpose of the trip was to take home a Mr. I.S., who lived in Grozny. Shamsy Magomadov was joined in the car by another brother, M. Magomadov. The father of the family told M.M. that the two brothers never came back from that trip. 4.5 In the first half of January 1995, distant relatives of the family brought to the village M. Magomadov’s body showing signs of shrapnel wounds. M.M. went to the village to be present at the funeral. After the funeral, he started his search for Shamsy Magomadov. He learned from Mr. I.S. that the two brothers had indeed taken him to his house in Grozny. The two brothers left their car at his house and told Mr. I.S. that they would try to find an alternative way to reach Shalazhi.6 4.6 The author was also questioned as part of the preliminary assessment. She also testified that Shamsy Magomadov and M. Magomadov had indeed left for Grozny and that they had taken Mr. I.S. to his house, but had had to stay with neighbours for safety reasons. On 31 December 1994, the authorities had started what was called the first military campaign in Chechnya. On 2 January 1995, the brothers attempted to leave Grozny. On the way out of the city, they were shot at by a military helicopter and had to return to the house of Mr. I.S. and leave the car there. They decided to attempt to leave the city again on 7 or 8 5 6 A preliminary assessment or a preliminary investigation is conducted to assess whether a more formal process or a full criminal investigation is warranted. They decided not to use the car due to military escalation. 3